This article is in response to a recent topic on the HubPages forum that argued that a biological basis for homosexuality is incompatible with the theory of evolution because homosexual do not produce offspring and the homosexual "gene" would thus die out.

It's a topic that has been discussed before on several occasions, and rather than repeat the same points I made in earlier threads, I decided just to write a hub about it.

A biological basis for homosexuality is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution. Here's why:

Do worker ants offer a clue to the existence of homosexuality? Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidden/87705598/

Homosexuals as Caretakers

One of the common misunderstandings about the theory of evolution is that "the survival of the fittest" refers mainly to individual animals. The truth is, however, that in nature, the survival of a population has more value than the survival of an individual animal. Although competition among individual animals may be fierce, individuals are ultimately expendable in the grand scheme of things.

For this reason, in many animal species, you find examples of individuals who do not reproduce but instead contribute to the survival of the population as a whole, especially their own family members. In fact, scientists have even found an "altruism" gene that they believe contributes to this kind of behavior.

The most famous examples of this kind of altruisim are probably "worker" bees and ants, who are sterile, but whose work ensures the survival of their genes via their fertile sisters and brothers, the queens and drones, who go on to produce the next generation.

Among mammals, wolves provide another well known example. Wolf packs contain one breeding pair, the "alphas," and several "beta" animals of either sex. Beta males do not breed, and though beta females occasionally do, they will often neglect their own pups in favor of caring for the pups of the alpha pair, whose genes may offer greater benefit to the population in the long term.

Some scientists believe that homosexual individuals serve a similar purpose in the web of life, particularly among social animals. Homosexual individuals can contribute to the survival of their genes by assisting in the care of their brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. In this way, families that contained a "homosexual" gene might have better survival rates in the long term, even though some individuals were evolutionary dead ends.

Are these male lions friends or lovers? Image source: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/2404544591_ebb0f0aa2b.jpg

Homosexual or Bisexual?

Another theory about the role of homosexuality in evolution comes from the high rates of bisexuality in the animal world.

Homosexual activity has been documented in more than 1500 animal species, and in many cases, the animals involved are actively bisexual, meaning that they participate in sexual activity with members of both sexes. This creates an obvious avenue for a "bisexual" gene to spread, because animals who carry it can engage in homosexual activity while still ensuring that their genes are passed on. However, in some individual animals the effects of the "bisexual" gene might be more pronounced (perhaps due to environmental factors, such as exposure to hormones in the mother's womb, which are believed to affect the development of human sexuality) and these animals might be exclusively homosexual.

One example of this sort of situation is the "bachelor bands" common among many social animals, including horses and lions. After leaving their herd, young males of these species join a bachelor band consisting of other juvenile males. Homosexual activity in these bands is often rampant, but as the animals grow older, many of them will go on to become the head of their own herds, breeding with females and passing on their genes. Others will remain in the bachelor band for their entire life.

This explains how a bisexual gene might be passed on, but why would it evolve in the first place? What benefit does bisexuality offer to the survival of a population?

One argument is that bisexuality helps prevent overpopulation. Many species are known to lower their reproductive rates in response to populations stressors such as drought. Homosexual activity would provide a way for animals to release pent-up sexual energies without adding to the population or resorting to fights and other aggressive actions, thus improving the survival rate of existing animals.

Among other animals, homosexual activity may be a way of reinforcing social ties. As we discussed above, groups that cooperate for survival often do better in the long term than those who are less altruistic.

An example of this theory comes from the bonobo, or pygmy chimpanzee, the closest living genetic relative of the human race, sharing approximately 98% of the same genes. Sexual activity, including kissing, rubbing genitals together, oral sex, and sexual intercourse, is one of the most important forms of social bonding among bonobos. They use sexual activity as a greeting, as a way to resolve conflicts peacefully, and as a form of post-conflict reconciliation, and they are apparently universally bisexual. In fact, some female bonobos have even been observed to choose female-on-female genital rubbing over intercourse with a male when both were offered at the same time.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

Scientists such as Alfred Kinsey have suggested that bisexuality is
also far more common among humans than is generally admitted in public.
Kinsey believed that sexuality was more accurately described as a spectrum than a series of distinct categories and he proposed a 7 point scale to describe human sexuality,
ranging from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively
homosexual), with X representing asexual people. Kinsey's studies found that some people were found at either end of the spectrum, exclusively hetero or homosexual, and another small group lay in the exact center, but the majority lay somewhere along the continuum in between - leaning one way or the other but capable of feeling attraction to either sex depending on opportunity and circumstance.

If this is the case,
it suggests that, like animals, human homosexuality is simply a more
pronounced form of an opportunistic bisexuality that is common to the
entire human race.

Learn More

Same-sex sexual behavior and evolutionSame-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals. Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations.

Comments

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

gconeyhiden

6 years agofrom Brooklyn, N.Y.C. U.S.A

hi, i have given this a lot of thought. one thing gay people do reproduce and have families. many also are bi sexual, or early in life they are heterosexual then they change to either bi or homo. Im guess there has to be some genetic component somewhere. in many species sex changes by age like in some fish. some men have more male traits and woman maybe more masculine. all human life starts off female so i can see how development can get complex while still in the fetal stage. anyway good hub on interesting topic.

Tricia Mason

7 years agofrom The English Midlands

A very interesting an educational item!

Great! :)

Baileybear

7 years ago

Not all heterosexual couples reproduce. The bonobos are fascinating, aren't they? I read an article about the Albotross (from New Zealand?) - surplus of females, so they paired up. The Albotross is known to mate for life, but one of the females would flirt with a male (that already had a mate), he would look around, do the deed, and the female would raise the chick with another female.

chris

8 years ago

There can be no gay gene because a gay gene is self-defeating in that it produces no progeny to carry on this gene. Kin selection cannot be a plausible explanation for the perpetuation of a purported gay gene because if kin selection truly operated, then natural selection would have increased the prevalence of the gay gene underlying so that kin selection could operate in virtually every pocket of heterosexuality. Yet, even the most generous statistics show that only a minority of people are homosexuals (around 10%) - and this is clearly not enough homosexuals to allow all the heterosexuals in the world to benefit from kin selection. Besides, if such a gene existed, and if it served the role of providing additional familial care, then certainly this knowledge of homosexuality's value to society would have been known from our very origins, and we would not need it to be hypothesized by theory.

Anyone interested in a totally different view on human sexuality? Then go to www.humansexualevolution.com for a provocative read. Here you will find a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal Of The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association in 2000. I look forward to your feedback.

AKA Winston

8 years ago

As is typical, the Evangelical plays fast and loose with logic, implying that if there is no homosexual gene then homosexuality must be a choice. This is simply offering a false dichotomy, the exact same method employed when ID is discussed, that disproof of one idea (actually a strawman) constitutes proof of an opposing idea - which is horse manure. There are also no "tall, leggy blonde" genes or "short and red-haired" genes to explain the preferences that cause increased excitement, but that in no way proves that "all men have equal sexual desires for all women".

Variation within species is enough to justify both homosexual and bisexual activity - and as humans are part of the chain of evolutionary animals, human actions must be included in any mention of "nature".

Strangely enough, it is typically the homophobe who holds the most ardent homosexual fantasies at bay by boasting aloud about disdain.

AUTHOR

kerryg

8 years agofrom USA

I don't advise you to make assumptions about how I live my life. I do not consider polygamy, polyandry, or "open" marriages among consenting adults to be inherently morally wrong. This does not mean I practice any of the three personally.

As for your Biblical arguments, the point is that it's possible to find something in the Bible to justify almost any point of view anyone could hold, so it's fairly useless as a basis for moral behavior.

For example, God wasn't "grieved" by David taking a second wife, He was grieved by the fact that David first committed adultery with Bathsheba and later sent her first husband to his death in order to marry her himself. Moreover, God's punishment for David and Bathsheba was to kill their child conceived in adultery, so shall we take this as evidence that God condones infanticide? After all, the Bible doesn't just "record" the fact that the baby died, it very explicitly states that God killed him: "And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bore unto David, and it was very sick." 2 Samuel 12:15

The Bible is ultimately a product of its times and the culture that produced it. Polygamy was widespread among the ancient Hebrews, but had declined by New Testament times due to cultural shifts, so that polygamy was enshrined in the Old Testament as normal and in the New Testament as undesirable. Whichever view you personally hold, you'll find plenty of material in the Bible to base it on, and with a little skillful rhetoric you'll be able to "prove" that your position is what God intended all along. Case in point:

Given the utter lack of moral absolutes in the Bible, what use is it as a foundation for modern morality?

Give me a rational reason to oppose polygamy, polyandry, or open relationships among consenting adults, and then we can talk.

Rookie70

8 years ago

Kerryg, what you believe, and what you do, and how you choose to live is your business, but don't tell me I need to study the bible. First of all, if you had any knowledge whatsoever of the bible, you would also know that in the New Testament and who inspired it, you would know that marriage is an institution of one man, and one woman. That is if you are a Christian. And 2, the Old Testament records King David having a young lady's husband murdered just so that King David could take her for his wife, which God was very grieved by. But the fact that the bible records it, doesn't mean that it is ok, and that nothing's wrong with it. The Old Testament also records the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who wanted to commit devious sexual acts with the visible angels, but the angels struck them with blindness. The fact that the bible records it, doesn't mean that homosexuality is ok. Finally, I will point out more of your ignorance and foolish statements. It doesn't matter if 2 consenting adults agree to something. That still doesn't make it ok. I am a consenting adult, let's say I and one other adult agrees with each other to have a threesome with another man's wife, even if his wife agrees to it, and not only that, but she encourages it, and her husband happens to be a "Cuckold," and therefore, agrees with the act also. The fact that all of us involved are consenting adults, does not make it right. It is still wrong, based upon moral standard, conviction, and sense of self-worth, or human values. Your ridiculous balderdash, which was, "As long as it occurs between consenting adults, I don't see why it is anybody's business but their own," shows that you have no moral standards, and your mind is very shallow, and you could probably care less about whose life you destroy by your degraded lifestyle. My advise for you is to stop believing all that garbage you hear and read, and pick up a bible, and ask Jesus to come into you heart. And renew your mind with something worth holding on to.

AUTHOR

kerryg

8 years agofrom USA

Rookie70, sorry, but you are way off base. Homosexual sex between two consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom harms nothing and nobody. Comparing it to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, murder, torture, rape, slavery, etc., where consent is not and *can* not be given is absurd.

Adultery may occur between two consenting adults, but unlike homosexuality, it causes demonstrable harm to a non-consenting third party, unless it is what you call an "alternative marriage" arrangement, such as polygamy, polyandry, or "open" marriage. You might want to study history, anthropology, or even just your Bible (most of the Biblical patriarchs had both multiple wives and multiple concubines), because if you had, you would know that marriages involving three or more people have been regarded as a normal and even preferred situation by many societies throughout history, including some in the modern world. As long as it occurs between consenting adults, I don't see why it is anybody's business but their own.

Rookie70

8 years ago

First, great hub! But, I want to comment on some other comments people have made on topics like this one. It bothers me when people say things like, "homosexuality is a fact of life, and thus, should be valued as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity."

Well, I am going to expose the flaw in statements such as this. If people think that homosexuality is a gift, let's look at every other sexual behavior, including the following:

1. Adulatry - also a fact of life, and should be accepted as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity.

2. Necrophylia - also a fact of life, and should be accepted as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity.

3. Pedophilia - also a fact of life, and should be accepted as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity.

4. Alternative marriages (where married couples include a 3rd party into their sexual relationship) - also a fact of life, and should be accepted as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity.

5. Beastiality - also a fact of life, and should be accepted as a gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity.

And the list goes on and on. Anything that is a fact should be considered a gift, including murder, torture, rape, slavery, stealing, and etc, are all facts of life, and should be accepted as gifts to the human population.

Wow, what a fallacious argument. The fact of the matter is, people need to quit being so dumb, and realize that homosexuality is wrong, is not the design of human life, nor is it a fact of survival, but is simply a false conception about mankind, his purpose and survival in this world. Evolution is a lie. Anyone who thinks different should also know that "a fool is right, but only in his own eyes."

Kevin Schofield

8 years ago

Great Hub! Homosexuality is a fact of life and should be valued as a fantastic gift to the wonderful spectrum of human diversity. Perhaps genetic research will one day identify the gene responsible for narrow-minded bigotry. Good work!

Pandoras Box

8 years agofrom A Seemingly Chaotic World

I know it's stereotypical I guess to say so, but I have long considered homosexuals to be exceptionally caring people. Their level of empathy and willingness to help others is something I used to attribute to their own history of suffering. I would most definitely entrust the care of my children to a known homosexual -whom I knew and trusted of course, the same as would be required in any straight person I entrusted my children with. But honestly I think that generally speaking most homosexual people would put forth more effort in caring. I don't know why it is, but that has been my experience.

By the way, I researched the homosexuals are child molestors issue once, (due to a topic in a forum), and what I learned from that was that child molestors -even male on male ones- were almost all heterosexuals. This was confirmed via measuring brain responses while showing molestors provocative pictures. For the molestors it was more about the control over the child and the ability to humiliate.

Great hub Kerry!

Chris Friend

8 years ago

As a gay man I can rest assure you that it's biological. I knew that I was really different at a very young age. Having been a CNA for the past 20 odd years, I also know that gay men and women tend to be excellent care providers for the elderly and diabled. Not sure why exactly.

raven1967

8 years agofrom Atlanta, GA

Nice hub Kerry, you got people talking and thinking.I'm no scientist, but I get so angry when people try to associate homosexuality with pedophilia. It is such b*llsh*t, the ignorance is astounding. I have to agree with Susana,not for everyone but most people's sexual orientation is obvious from a young age. Of course, you don't know for sure until adulthood. When you see a child with all the characteristics of the opposite sex and they are homosexual adults it makes perfect sense. For most people it is not a choice. Sorry DiamondRN but you and your kind were the same one's against civil rights, women's rights, interacial marriage, you name it. You will deny it, but there will always be someone to hate for your kind. The religious right will use a bible as their weapon, but I believe they are doing the devils work. Anyway wake the F up!! Have a nice day

Nicks

8 years ago

I have to say the 'do not live your children in the room with them' comment from Diamond PR is hardly the type of objective comment I expect from a 'scientist' and, as Ralf deeds comments - any dangers to children are (horrifically)far more likely to come from family and friends. And, please, what on earth has religion (one way or the other) got to do with homosexuality?

TLMinut

8 years ago

Good read. I followed the forum thread but didn't get to all the links Sufi posted - the first one came up with a lot of dots in place of the text. Still, what I DID read was quite interesting! I had the same question as the OP, why wouldn't this have died out long ago? Someone mentioned other detrimental traits that didn't die out so it was worth investigating.

Male dominance and hierarchy being involved makes a great deal of sense. Lots of other good points too but just that helped me see how it could still exist.

AUTHOR

kerryg

8 years agofrom USA

Thanks to everyone for your comments!

Daniel Carter and reddog1027, thanks for highlighting the point that heterosexual men are actually statistically more likely to be child molesters than homosexual men. In fact, the majority of child molesters are married! Child molesters are opportunistic offenders and age is generally the more important factor than sex. It is rarely possible to tell the sexual orientation of a child molester from the sex of his victims. These facts are often conveniently ignored by conservatives seeking to push a homophobic agenda.

True pedophiles are much rarer than child molesters, and are actually considered an entirely separate sexual orientation. Again, age and opportunity are generally the important factors in their choice of victims, not sex.

Cindy Letchworth

8 years agofrom Midwest, U.S.A.

What an interesting article. Some good research here. It made me think of a pair of female gerbils I had once. The one female would constantly mount the other as a male mounts a female. This could have been simply a matter of dominance but I often wondered if there was a sexual issue going on as well.

reddog1027

8 years agofrom Atlanta, GA

Kerry, this was a well written and thoughtful hub. It was well thought, provided information that I, as a scientist (25 years as a microbiologist, I might add)found factual.

I think science does not have all the answers yet but I believe that as time goes on more and more evidence will link sexual preference to more than one cause.

And as to the remark about leaving my child in the care of homosexual. My children would be far safer in the care of a homosexual than a pedophile. As the definition of homosexual is "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; ." while pedophilia is "is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children." Big difference. People who prey on children are not homosexual but pedophiles.

Time to get of my soap box. Great hub

Daniel Carter

8 years agofrom Western US

Great article, Kerry! Thanks very much!

@DiamondRN: If you want to make sure your kids are not in the hand of pedophiles, then I suggest that you keep them away from family, friends and neighbors FIRST, since statistically, these are the people who perform such heinous acts far more frequently than other groups (regardless of sexual preference). As for pedophiles among homosexuals: there are probably no more, statistically, among them than there are in the heterosexual population, per capita.

I'll bet there are a lot more heterosexual pedophiles in prison than there are homosexual ones.

William R. Wilson

8 years agofrom Knoxville, TN

Great hub Kerry. I saw that thread yesterday and wanted to respond but I realized that the OP was not interested in honestly examining the issue but just wanted to push his agenda.

Maybe one day science will win out over superstition.

Susana Serer

8 years agofrom UK

Great article Kerry and so well written - hats off too you :) Concerning the postulation in the forum thread - in my view anyone that has to see things as either/or, black and white has a lot to learn! The title homosexuality VS evolution, in itself shows a great deal of ignorance. As does the idea that homosexuality = paedophilia.

Even if we move away from the scientific research and go on anecdotal evidence - gay and bisexual people will say "I've always been this way - I was born this way". "It was not a choice I made". Being bisexual myself I know I was born that way - it's been evident to me since I was about 5 yrs old. My eldest daughter is lesbian and I could have told anyone that when she was 2 yrs old.

Creationists will grab at any straw to prove their theory - I guess they thought they were being clever with postulating a homosexuality/evolution paradox except there is no paradox! And you did a great job of explaining it.

foxxyz69

8 years agofrom Niles Ohio

Very Interesting !

Peter Dickinson

8 years agofrom South East Asia

An interesting and educational article and equally interesting comments....I didn't doubt there would be. There appears to be a very popular mis belief that paedophiles and gays are one and the same. They most definitely are not! I have a loathing and and intense dislike of paedophiles but number many gays amongst my closest friends (and I am as straight as a die). These same gays share my dislike of paedophiles. There is a similar misconception where 'sex tourists' are all classed as perverts and paedophiles. Definitely not! Read my hub 'The Much Maligned Sex Tourist'.

I daresay that you will get many other comments. I look forward to reading them. Thank you for this hub.

Misha

8 years agofrom DC Area

Nice hub Kerry. Even nicer is the fact that we have something to agree on, finally :)

Sufidreamer

8 years agofrom Sparti, Greece

Diamond - your original point queried whether there was a consensus amongst biologists that homosexuality is largely biological, whether genetic or hormonal, with nurture yet another facet. I answered that question to the best of my abilities :)

As for the genetics - there is still research underway.

"There have been a few attempts to localize the specific genes that influence male homosexuality. The complex nature of the occurrence of male homosexuality in human pedigrees indicates that its inheritance is not a simple Mendelian trait (Pillard et al. 1981; Camperio-Ciani et al. 2004), making the mapping of individual genes more difficult. A quantitative trait locus (QTL) for homosexuality (Xq28) has been localized to the X chromosome (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995), but the methodology used in these studies was questioned later (McKnight 1997) and the findings have been difficult to replicate (Bailey et al. 1999; Rice et al. 1999). Recently, a genome-wide QTL screen for male homosexuality (Mustanski et al. 2005) found three ‘nominally significant linkage peaks’, indicating three autosomal genes that may influence male sexual orientation, as well as limited support for the previously reported X-linked QTL (Xq28). These initial results are only preliminary and require confirmation from additional genetic studies.

I would certainly agree with the last sentence - more research needed :)

EDIT: Diamond - I write academic papers for a living, so I am fully aware of what a peer reviewed study is, thanks ;)

The Royal Society meets all peer-reviewing criteria, as does the National Institute of Health, as does Trends in Ecology and Evolution and The University of Praetoria :)

However, I didn't realise that the bloody links did not copy across properly!

Not sure what point you are trying to make with the CPF article - that is not acceptable, although the original paper probably would be, if published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal.

Ralph Deeds

8 years agofrom Birmingham, Michigan

Diamond RN, you are making a big mistake in implying that homosexuals are pedophiles. That is a gross error which I guess isn't surprising coming from an Evangelical.

Kerry, nice Hub. My own belief is that individuals may not be neatly divisible between homosexuals and heterosexuals or even placed on a continuum between the two poles. Rather, there are variety of human sexual behavior proclivities and practices--ranging from many within ordinary heterosexualilty or homosexuality to a variety of other proclivities, many of which are harmless while others like pedophilia, rape, sadism and voyeurism, are criminally deviant compulsive behaviors. There are a wide variety of sexualities out there as well as a fair number of asexuals.

Bob Diamond RPh

8 years agofrom Charlotte, NC USA

Surfidreamer, there are no peer-reviewed studies linking homosexuality to DNA anomalies or genetic markers in your list.

Here are the sources from the forum post I made earlier. If you search for homosexuality, genes etc. in Google Scholar, there is plenty of research - I set the search to later than 2005. Some of the sources are from subscription journals, but there is still plenty to go on. Even if you are not convinced that the trait is mostly biological, it will hopefully show you that Kerry is correct, and there is a consensus amongst biologists (myself included!)

If you have anything contrary, I will show you the same courtesy and promise to read them :)

Bob Diamond RPh

8 years agofrom Charlotte, NC USA

Shadesbreath, I hate to disappoint your thesis as well. I have had wonderful life. The kind that one can only be thankful for. PS. I escaped unharmed from child predators twice in my life. That's something to be thankful for also.

AdsenseStrategies

8 years agofrom CONTACT ME at Adsensibilities@gmail.com

"Don't leave your kids in the same room as them when you go shopping" reminds me of reports I have seen of the kinds of off-the-cuff jokes people in Germany used to make about Jews... all harmless stuff, right...

Unbelievable.

Is this not the Twenty-first century?

Or maybe the person who wrote that is a supporter of the Iranian regime, where homosexuals can be arrested and disappear... I wouldn't want to be aligning your views with that government and worldview in today's climate.

Anyway, as I said on the threads, it is irrelevant politically and morally whether homosexuality is genetically-influenced or not.

We (or at least I... I don't live in the United States, mind you), live in a free society, where you don't have to like what someone does in their bedroom but you do have to acknowledge their FREEDOM (remember that word?) to do it... or perhaps you'd prefer yet MORE government intervention into our private lives.

All of this was, of course, aimed at the commenter, and not at Kerry. Sorry to be confusing!

Best wishes.

Sufidreamer

8 years agofrom Sparti, Greece

Arthur and Tony - I suspect that the forum OP was trying to force 'atheists' into a corner where they have to renounce evolution, or accept that homosexuality is purely a choice.

Kerry's Hub and the latest research shows that they are not mutually exclusive :D

Bob Diamond RPh

8 years agofrom Charlotte, NC USA

Surfidreamer, scientists are required to have an open mind. Could you please help me out by pointing out some legitimate scientific peer-reviewed studies that support the thesis that homosexuality has a biological/genetic basis?

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Shadesbreath

8 years agofrom California

Nice work, Kerry, I think you've summed up a lot of the leading, well supported research here and made it very palatable. I wish more hawt human females were like bonobos and kicked down some sexual activity as a means of greeting. How fun with that be, walking down the street and see some super model, and be all, "Hi," and she jumps you politely. Very cool.

DiamondRN, all I can say is you live in a bubble and it must suck to live a life so full of fear and the certainty that people are out to get you. Sad.

Tony McGregor

8 years agofrom South Africa

Great article - and I like your emphasis on the survival of the fittest applying to species rather than individuals. I think many people misunderstand that aspect of natural selection.

Like Arthur though I wonder about this question. I saw it in the forums but didn't comment there - I tend to avoid the forums as they seem to be affording people a space to be nasty instead of really debating issues. ButI was puzzled by it because I'm not aware of homosexuality having any part to play in natural selection or, more broadly, evolution.

And like Sufi I would very happily leave my children in the care of or in the same room with a gay or lesbian person. They would probably be safer than with some honcho hetero!

It's late at night so this comment might not be too cogent, sorry. thanks for a good Hub anyway.

Love and peace

Tony

Sufidreamer

8 years agofrom Sparti, Greece

I beg to disagree, DiamondRN - if you read 'non-evangelical' scientific papers, you will find that there is a lot of consensus that homosexuality is largely biological.

Certainly not 'all' scientists, but enough for the aforementioned consensus. It is a view with which I largely agree, based upon the papers I have read, and I hope that I am neither naïve or uneducated.

I would, quite happily, leave my children in a room with 'them' whilst I go shopping.

Bob Diamond RPh

8 years agofrom Charlotte, NC USA

Google placed an add on your article, which I realize you have nothing to do with.

I've studied DNA for over 30 years. There is no "... biological basis for homesexuality." and it is not "... well established in the scientific community"

They are using Al Gore-type rhetoric, thinking that you might just be naïve or uneducated enough to believe them.

PS. Don't leave your kids in the same room with them while you go shopping.

Arthur Windermere

8 years ago

I really like this article, Kerry. But I'll be honest, I'm a bit confused as to the question it's answering. Do some people genuinely believe that homosexuality is a counter-example to (incompatible with) the theory of natural selection? As in, homosexuality is only possible if there's a Creator God? Because that would be an amusingly ironic misunderstanding on their part.

You've gone above and beyond the call of duty here. Because really, the way the theory of natural selection works, you don't even have to explain homosexuality as 'useful' or contributing to the survival of the species, right? It's entirely plausible that homosexuality merely a coincidence in surviving species and adds no survival value.

Anyway, great work! I learned some new stuff reading this.

Mrs. Obvious

8 years agofrom Northern California

Interesting. I believe that a lot of homosexual behavior in animals is actually just a form of establishing dominance amongst themselves; a pecking order. This is true for dogs for sure. Not that they prefer the same sex, but will use a same sex animal in the absence of an available opposite sex one, to relieve the instinctual pressure to mate. In essence they are actually masturbating in the only way available- because they don't have hands!!

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)